I think that most people have a bigger problem with the "sexual conversations with underage people" than anything else. Conservative Christians are the ones that would be upset over any homosexuality... Liberals are down with the rainbow.

texaggie79 is a bushbot. I saw Drudge the other day blaming the teenagers. that people are desperately sidestepping this one congressmen instead of rightfully tossing him to the wolves shows just how crazy some people are. its more important to keep a seat than to actually practice the morals they base so much of their campaign on. I even saw Newt Gingrich say they knew but decided to keep him around because they were 'afraid they'd come across as gay bashers'

in other words, pedophilia is equivolent to homosexuality to him, and even worse, thats basically admitting the appearance of the party is more important than you know, preventing children from being preyed upon. now i'm no fan of kids, but its just mindblowing how much defense of the indefensible i'm seeing.

Well "mansex" would not be defended by GOP but "almosttheresex" might be. The opposite would apply to dems. Combining the two... a bit of a stretch, but I guess boyf*cking is just too good a term to pass up.

finally, whether its this or catholic priests (i have an uncle that was touched in his special area, and he's still in denial), does it seem to anyone else that this sort of behavior must be tied into sexual repression? the armchair psychologist in me is saying that going your whole life never coming to terms with being gay because of religious beliefs... its like you were never strong enough to become an actual adult and face yourself, like in a way some of these people are grown creepy children...

It's pretty apparent that most of them, like most people, don't support it. But social conservatives - the morality police - are a lot more visible when they get caught for this stuff because the stink of hypocrisy reaches a long way. Every time we fire up the ol' schadenfreude and publicly skewer someone like this, it's a warning to the next guy that would try to legislate our bedroom behaviors.

i'm sure many of these *ssh*l*es just plain want the supple young flesh of freshly squeezed boy, but really - looking at the language this old man uses in these IMs to talk with kids, having actually worked for someone who turned out to be a pedophile (a 'straight' pedo), and other things i've read, they seem to really try to communicate with kids on what they think is their level in their mannerisms... anyone else familiar with a simultanously scary and amusing site called pervertedjustice.com?

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg - ink, did you see this? this is funnier to me than your site actually. Fox News repeatedly put up graphics showing Foley as a Democrat

"Every time we fire up the ol' schadenfreude and publicly skewer
someone like this, it's a warning to the next guy that would try to
legislate our bedroom behaviors." Unfortunately it comes across as people want it to. Most people just say, "We need to get a righteous man in office so he can legislate our bedroom behaviors" rather than, you know, not.

"its like you
were never strong enough to become an actual adult and face yourself, like
in a way some of these people are grown creepy children..." I've found that people tend to do things for their own reasons. Like, say, enjoying having sexual chats with underage boys rather than attributing it to something else. Not to say that the repression doesn't play a role, or even the deciding role in his case, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that he did it only because he was repressed.

Plenty of people grow up in repressive households and societies... most of them don't get caught doing what he was doing. And, not to be overly speculative, but I don't think that everyone who grows up in a repressive household sweet talks little boys on the internet. Also, to say that it worsens "deviant" behavior is a bit of a stretch, as it is deviant only in America. The legal age in other countries is as low as 14 (That I've heard of... don't quote me on that... but it differs).

i'm not saying thats the be all end all, i'm just saying i think there might be something to it on some level. i think issues like this are more complex than "he's just evil" - as for legal age, that doesnt mean anything to me. even if they were of consentual age theres something wrong about a 52 year old man lechering over teenage boys that are there to learn. its like a teacher and a student. hell, i even object to most cases of people my age (latter half of twenties) still chasing teenagers....

... you know, like Wooderson from Dazed and Confused... "gotta love these teenage girls man, i keep getting older but they all stay the same age. yes they do. yes they do" - there comes a time to give it up... at Foley's age, he should be out having lemon parties. meh, for all i know he recently had some gay revelation and feels the need on catching up with 38 years of being gay... each person is unique, but i like pretending theres some constant amongst issues for arguments sake alone...

I got an automated phone call about this today, talking about "changing leadership so this won't happen again"... yeah, right. I'll take the pedo over the pinko... just don't let the sick monkey kiss any babies...

The problem with any psychological studies of this nature is that it is impossible to randomly sample and... there are so many factors to isolate in order to get an unbiased sample. Understating the effect is always safer than overstating the effect... that is not to say that there is no effect. There are a lot of things that are strange about differing sexual attitudes... polygamist, clasical Greek (crazy bastards), sugar mommas... I don't find pedophilia to be any more odd.

Hopefully they're talking about the allegations that party leadership including Hastert knew about this and covered it up for years. That's something that could surely stand to be replaced. Pedophilia? That's gonna hang around no matter who's in power.

On some other Foley site someone mentioned, "Apparently Foley is now blaming his fondness for wee boys on the fact he
was allgedly molested by a priest." First thing that came to mind was... Foley is repeating the sins of the father.

I think it was Steve Chabot or some such... I vote on the issues, not the issuers. If there were a choice between the guy who did the coverup- but votes the same way I would in congress- or someone who wasn't involved and votes the same way, I'd take the innocent guy. Problem is, that's not the case. (I voted for Bush in the last election for that very reason. Kerry didn't know what to vote half the time, but he hated the bill of rights. More specifically, the right to bear arms.)

Sitsu is so hostile. Must be poor. You'd see things differently if you were waiting on a trust fund. Don't deny. Money is more important than anything in this world, and you've got to bear arms to defend that sh*t. And to defend your family against a few gays on the way to the bank because they're f*cking up your America.

Et tu, Sitsu? Foley's not even in my state. The ONLY difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the way they vote. I pretty much agree with Republican standards(with the exception of forcing religion down our throats, and being against abortion - I consider that natural selection, but that's another matter). Korf41 made the best point there.
At any rate, it's 3 am and I have to be up early for work tomorrow.

My main hostility is based on the fact of one Christian party calling the other Christian party extremist commies... its ridiculous to me to see the Democrats be labeled as such so often... i dont think the States know what actual leftist politics looks like. for the most part, in Canada most of the Democrats would be in the Conservative party.

I'm still waiting for a party that represents me. Extreme social permissiveness (ie no drug war, no regulations on sex between consenting adults etc) globalist free trade policy with domestic social safety net (you'd think radical libertarians would recognize the value of investments that pay for themselves) and internationalist defense policy. Too socially radical for either major party right now, too globalist for all but some Democrats, and not nearly dogmatic enough to be libertarian. :(

i'm more leftist because of social issues. Economics? i've had many different levels of income - Canadas leftist party the NDP pushes too far one way, the Liberal party actually governs more conservative, and the actual Conservative Party in Canada and the REpublican Party in my lifetime I've observed to actually waste more money than i coudl ever imagine whilst trying to scare you that the others would be so much worse. I dont trust gay hating, God fearing, gun toting rednecks with my wallet. period.

anyways, see Bill Hicks' rants about politics and puppetry... two guys holding up both puppets... at the same time I dont support Libertarianism because so much of it is short sighted and flat out selfish, and yes, very dogmatic... i flat out support socialized medicine, after all the US already pays way more per capita than Canada and yet they cant get everyone covered... i view it as an essential service like fire and police - it may not hit you one day, but someday - so look out for everyone....

The right to bear arms was originally intended to make sure that people could rise up against the government if they became too overbearing. Sorry, but you can't beat a cruise missle with your shotgun or assault rifle or no just stop. The point of the modern day judicial branch is to uphold the original intentions of the framers of the constitution, and that clause is completely obsolete.

basically with the choices i'm presented with, in my country at least i trust the government more than private corporations. besides, any Canadian one that grows big enough gets swallowed up by larger US ones (no real competition with quality winning in the end as promised)... the US ideals of capitalism and the American Dream dont ring true to me when I see this sh*t. Canadas motto is peace order and good government, and I think we try to keep our govt on a tighter leash than you do....

"I dont trust gay hating, God fearing, gun toting rednecks with my wallet. period." The majority of them are wealthy, however... they must have some grasp on how to handle money... god I need sleep. Anyway, I wouldn't mind voting "Democrat" if the politician in question stood by the citizen's rights, instead of trying to hold my hand and steer me to the bread line... In fact, I've voted Libetarian, and Democrat on a few ballots through the years... I vote on how he/she is going to vote.

I'm curious where the notion that Kerry was anti-gun came from. I didn't pay attention to it from either perspective really (I'm pretty ambivalent on gun control,) but I don't recall Kerry ever making a stance toward more gun control. Didn't he, in fact, try to cozy up to gun owners more than Gore did the election before?

(i'm talking too much) - but really, yeah - I dont want to play up like Canada is perfect at all, but I'm proud of the way we constantly pound on our politicians, we're not scared of them, and thus I think we're a lot more trusting in social programs than we are in private corporations. If you dont trust your government, well I understand - its not like theres never corruption here, but some of the stuff I see you guys put up with from both sides, man, no wonder you're forming militias against them....

About medicine... it is all developed in the US and the government (with the help of lobbyists and campaign contributions) allows them to pass the costs on to the consumer whereas Canada just makes the pills themselves without doing the initial R&D. To say that healthcare costs would be as low as they are if the US's harmaceutical industry didn't produce most of the new meds out I think is debatable.

"and I think we try to keep our govt on a tighter leash than you do...." I thought it was the other way around? At least, that's the impression I've been given, I could be mistaken. PS: Holy crap, all this time I'd forgotten to vote. Here's a five for bringing interesting conversation to my day. (As soon as I get a new mic you are I am so gonna earrape you all)

I do distinctly remember Kerry out hunting in several photo-ops. my main issue with US Democrats more than anything is that they take their base for granted and dont take a hard stance on anything... I just hate that liberals are associated only with pussies like many of the Democrats and the granola eating tree dweller hippies that i dont like either, and not this huge atheistic, rights focused but regulation considerating contingent like me....

I did the Political Compass and I got right in the middle of the road. I was pinned Liberterian. I'm a strict individualist and believe in the power of the free market. I don't care about equality of outcome, what I care about is equality of opportunity. What's proven though for example when it comes to health care is that universal health care gives better equality of opportunity than when the free market does it. That's why I can't call myself Liberterian.

" but I don't recall Kerry ever making a stance toward more
gun control. Didn't he, in fact, try to cozy up to gun owners more than
Gore did the election before?"
Yeah, he did cozy up to them, he had a photo op holding a gun that he had voted to ban the year before during the campaign. I'll have to find that photo again, it's got to be somewhere on the net... tomorrow after work I'll go on a google-hunt.

Sitsu you fail to take into account that the gap between rich and poor in Canada is so narrower and the education system (partly because of the first) is so much better. Rich people control the richest companies which control the lobbying and contributions and their kids get top grade education. No need for public education. Educating the public would most likely lead to more honest debate which would make it more difficult for corruption to run rampant...

well Steve, I firmly beleive we hold our politicians way more accountable... are you familiar with the Adscam controversy and how we took care of our ruling party? I dont like our new government much but I think Canadians have proven time and time again that we bite back at our leaders, hard. we force them to come out and explain themselves instead of hiding behind press secretaries that dont tell you anything. we put our leaders on the floor to be yelled at all day by the other parties. i like this system

The accountability system I do like, it's involvement the government takes with the individual that has me wary. (And we do have a bit of accountability here, too. Most everyone who voted "yes" on the Clinton gun ban was voted out of office as soon as it was possible. Really, most of the specifications of that ban were retarded.)

last thing: "it's involvement the government takes with the individual that has me wary." - well, if you trusted your government more maybe you wouldnt feel that way. in the meantime, it seems to me the US government between domestic spying, intrusion into the bedroom, etc has its own severe problems, so i dont think theres a whole lotta ground to try and one up us on there.

It's because parliamentary systems simply are better for some reason. If any European leader even such as spend too much tax money on a crayfish dinner they get removed from their government position or are expected to step down. No joke.

"we put our leaders on
the floor to be yelled at all day by the other parties." Don't ever bring this sort of discussion into a discussion of American politics as it just doesn't make any sense. It should make sense, and would be a lot better if it made sense, but it just doesn't. If you put a leader on the floor, he'll be yelled at by the other side and those comments will be brushed off.

2 party system means that no side ever has to listen to the other side. All comments, true or false, can easily be brushed off as partisan. There is such a wider realm of stuff to get away with in a 2 party system than in a multi-party system. Although, honestly, having a bunch of people with something to gain tearing you down for something can't ever be all that effective, regardless of how many parties there are.

The big advantage to a parliamentary system that isn't being mentioned is that coalitions invariably represent the voter will better because a parliamentary system allows more than two parties to exist and achieve power beyond the local level (where we hide all our greens and libertarians.) Sure, it gives a political voice to the wingnuts, but it's better than watching a formerly mainstream party be taken over by wingnuts from within.

"It's because parliamentary systems simply are better for some reason. If
any European leader even such as spend too much tax money on a crayfish
dinner they get removed from their government position or are expected to
step down. No joke." Europe has smaller income gap, smaller population, is less diverse... There are soooooo many fewer variables. If you alienate yourself from one person you've alienated yourself from 90%.

I'm all for parliament, especially in America because of the retarded populace who can't be trusted to elect a president (also, median voter theory), but I don't necessarily know that it would make it any more possible for there to be a multi-party system. (See: uneducated populace). Idiots can't even understand left and right. It is more efficient for people to cast their lot (contributions) with one of two parties. A third would die off as they always do. It's all about money.

Korf, actually, i think if the US had a parliamentary setup in regards to discourse, we'd see actual other parties start to emerge and actual viewpoints be heard on TV... really, the US needs a more libertarian party and a more leftist party, and hell, maybe even the religious nuts can finally put together a party that would actually follow through on what they want rather than just win their votes and ignore what they want done...

stuff like Question Period in my opinion will bring you leaders who actually know their platform and can elegantly describe it even if you disagree. we will take a leaders' knowledge over the star posing and one liners. leaders dont have to invent pundit shills to bat for them, i believe our politicians do the dirty work themselves more often. i dont see how anyone wouldnt want to have leaders that actually regularly explain themselves frequently in place of millionaire talking head shills.

The problem with Question Period is, in my opinion, that it makes the leader even more of a PR or diplomat than he already is. To understate the importance of the Cabinet is a big mistake as they are the ones that do everything (and Cheney dictates what they do). To make the Cabinet answer for their actions is what is really needed... GW is on vacation most of the year anyways. The more time they spend talking about what they do the less they actually do (and the more the Cabinet does).

Often times i find that the main probelm and vote getter for the republicain party is the christain right. Its unsecular views and double standards on morality , leave no room for agruement or discussion of the issues thus creating a regressive party with more focus on the subjective nature of "morality" than improving the schools, fixing the defiect, etc.

Turns out he was molested by a clergyman, of couse there's no absolutely no connection between having that happen to you and becoming a gay alcohloic with creepy boundary issues, nope none at all! Total coincidence!

He's not an alcoholic. They stashed him in rehab to keep him out of public view. Nobody he knows even remembers him drinking and alcoholism is easy to spot. So much so that - interestingly enough - it's called "the elephant in the room." Clergy molestation could play a role, but a lot of people who are molested can live normal lives. At some point you have to call a spade a spade and say that an assbackwards platform based on judgment and repression of one's true self did this to him.

i find it funny that when a liberal Democrat has any other minor-related sex offenses (see sources: http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357), the lib Dems try and defend it - even dismiss pedophile as a "sexual preference". But whenever a GOP leader comes into the same messy situation, they completely bash the entire party. Say the following words in unison please, ready? : DOUBLE STANDARD.
I'm not defending this guy, but i'm telling you: the Dems are playing the game rather than getting sh*t done. 1

I'm still interested that someone downvoted me for CNN as if I big-upped it anywhere. The only difference between CNN and Fox is that CNN trash of a less partisan color - more Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck and Headline News car chases and school shootings. But since I didn't even MENTION CNN, I've got to think this is some rabid partisan's knee-jerk "THE LIEBRUL MEDIA" defense mechanism. Settle down, Billy Bob. I ain't takin' your guns.

A: You just turned this into Red v. Blue. Not me. Just now. B: If your source is more interested in naming them off rapid-fire rather than going into details about the merits of the accusations, the situation surrounding it and the party's response, then your source is trash. C: I'm not even a Democrat. Pull out of your them/us battle mode for a minute and realize it looks like you're excusing the actions of a pederast by playing this team loyalty sh*t.

D: People will cut the Democrats more slack for personal failings because they never stood out to be holier-than-thou and legislate other peoples' bedroom behaviors. That's what separates a random deviant from a mouth-foaming hypocrite.

oh please - look into the history of those instances and you'll find all the details you want. As for "party loyalty", f*ck it - I'm a principal-before-party independent. Once again, who would f*cking defend this guy? I wouldn't - but you have to look at what this YTMND refers to: the never ending blood thirsty, foaming-at-the-mouth bullsh*t battle between red and blue. You can't possibly put an elephant head on top of his and claim you weren't aiming for throwing some kind of bias towards this.

You know what though, i'll 3 you because i think this is somewhat well done and you take the time to intelligently defend this ytmnd - i just think this could have been thought over again- there's just too much bullsh*t out there and we don't need more...but, it's YTMND, so I'm wondering why I even care. I'm here to laugh and upvote/downvote - not to get into deep, heated arguments on politics, religion, etc. I'll admit i contributed to it at one point, and it belongs somewhere else. Good day sir ***

I might've jumped to conclusions. I know that in the past couple days, I've seen so many people defending this guy for their party, and so many questionable news sources that I start to get suspicious of anybody.

It would be his own personal indiscretion if not for the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which I believe Foley himself helped author. It prevents the interstate predation of minors by use of the internet and sets the federal age of a minor as 18. If what he was doing wasn't criminal, he'd probably resign and get on with his life (let's face it - legal or not, what he was doing wasn't going to play with red state voters.)

Wow this site's comments are full of hardcore liberals. And it's funny how the one crazy conservative's comment(s) seemingly got deleted. Huh, I thought liberals didn't like censorship and preserved freedom of speech. Liberals being just as full of sh*t and hypocritical as conservatives....no way. And good site by the way.

Partisan politics is more important to these people than the actual well-being of America. There is a difference between a politician and a leader. The revolution will come soon enough, well, not soon enough, but soon enough.

"we're still waiting to find out how much his
party was involved in covering it up" We're also waiting to see if any democrats knew about it and when. Hopefully the investigation is being done thoroughly, including when ABC knew about it, who told them, etc.

Back from another wonderful day at work, and ran a quick dig around google for the kerry photo-mishap... http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431: This is the bill in question. http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01431:@@@P Evidence he co-sponsored the bill. http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/kerry%5Fsurvey%2Epdf The coalition against gun violence did this interview with Kerry. http://www.nrapvf.org/kerry/Read.aspx?ID=4086 This article could have sufficed for all the previous links...

I'd love it if 80% of Congress burned on this one. There are a few people that I'm a fan of, but most of them on both sides can DIAF for all I care. In the past couple years I've seen some of the few I can get behind retire or sell out.

you know, if he didn't actually molest anyone, i really don't give a sh*t. Such a red herring. Of all the corruption, ineffectiveness, and f*cking of the entire American population that goes on in Washington, the media instead has 24/7 coverage of some drunk congressman's attempted cyberf*cking of a 16 year old page. Nice journalistic integrity. Maybe I'll watch something about scott peterson or jon bennett now... god damn irrelevent storys on my tv. aghhhhh.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind flushing the toilet that is Capitol Hill either, but you know it's going to be a very one-sided and partisan attack... Why do you think it was outed now? The Democrats probably knew about this just as long as the Republicans did. (They're all corrupt scum)

but was it worse than the photo of bush after landing on the aircraft carrier? http://www.eadshome.com/images/foundingfathers/bush%20in%20flight%20suit.jpg, http://www.geektimes.com/michael/site/archive/2004/11/images/mission-accomplished.jpg

"but was it worse than the photo of bush after landing on the aircraft
carrier?" Bush actually knows how to operate an aircraft safely, and had never voted to ban aircraft or aircraft carriers. In fact, he fully supports the use of them. ;)

"I think I would like Bush a lot more if he stepped out of the c*ckpit of
Air Force and Marine One all the time" He's a FIGHTER pilot, not a commercial airliner pilot. the principles are different enough to warrant extensive further training to transition from one to the other.

My problem with this "both parties are scum" thing is that, while true, it's always used to defend whoever f*cked up. I don't care about some party inquisition. If someone committed serious crimes, throw them out. Ignore the past, ignore the party and throw the c*cksucker out. Since each side seems to believe that the other is more corrupt, let's just drop the politics, prosecute the corrupt bastards and feel secure in knowing that "the other guy" is going to get it worse.

Of course, the current corruption of the new GOP is so endemic in the party that an equal opportunity "throw the bums out" stance would gut their entire upper level leadership, so it's no surprise that this bullsh*t is getting turned partisan. A Traficant here and a Jefferson there does not equal a DeLay, Cunningham, Foley, Gannon/Guckert, Abramoff, Frist, Lay, Skilling, Cheney/Libby/Rove, etc. We could build a new energy policy on Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave.

Steve has spent a lot of time working to show that Kerry is hypocritical in his stance on the 2nd ammendment, and we should commend him for that. However, his behavior not only is understandable, it is actually the common practice of all politicians in widescale elections. See the median voter theorem. Politicians attempt to get as many people as they can under their wide and sometimes hypocritical stances (hypocrisy gets you reds and blues if you don't get called on it!)

The real problem, though, is that a man who advocates morality in a party that does not believe in homosexuality was caught violating a law protecting minors that he voted into law with a boy across state lines via the internet. The crime is unforgivable from all perspectives (especially the blatant hypocrisy of violating your own law which was passed from your own party's stance on morality) and the homosexual behavior is unforgivable by Republicans...

Thus, his actions are wrong and criminal and should not only have him thrown out of office but also pending legal charges and yet, as this ytmnd satirizes, the Republicans are trying to play it off as a partisan ploy to get more seats in Congress. The simple truth is that his actions are illegal and any homosexual implications violate his own party's morality platform (bible morality) and not the Democrat's. Thus, don't pull out the red herring and make it a partisan issue when it is an individual issue.

Also, nice work TheOminousThey on the site and on being an unbiased and intelligent moderator. Also, I enjoy your flaming of people who you've been ytmndspying on, but it seems that the long night has been unkind to you. Anyways, fun discussion, let's keep up the satire.

"Thus, his actions are wrong and criminal and should not only have him
thrown out of office but also pending legal charges and yet, as this ytmnd
satirizes, the Republicans are trying to play it off as a partisan ploy to
get more seats in Congress."
It's both.

"However, his behavior not only is understandable, it is actually the common
practice of all politicians in widescale elections." That was my entire point. Politicians will do anything, even allow a pedophile to run free for months, just to give themselves a boost at election time.

Yeah well their actions are politicized in that they are an attempt to get votes. In that sense their actions are justified by "the ends justify the means" morality and it really doesn't matter what they say as long as it gets results. Oh, and pulling the wool over Americans' eyes isn't so tough when half of them read at a 5th grade level.

It really doesn't matter whether this behavior is "right" or "wrong" as both parties have different conceptions of what is right and wrong and each individual differs... but fence-sitting is not illegal. If you want to say that any time a person of the opposite party does something blatantly illegal and is attacked for it that it is merely a partisan ploy, then you will be suffering from "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Because every time you say, "oh, it's merely partisan bickering" they will figure that you mean... the guy is probably guilty and the other people are trying to take advantage of it. The problem with partisan bickering is that they fabricate substance in order to make it seem as if the other person did something wrong. When the person does something wrong, it is wrong. This is not to say that we should ever listen to politicians, as they suffer similarly because of their partisan bickering...

But when outside sources, such as anyone who encounters the story from any media outlet, determines that the man actually did something wrong and that this is significantly different from the normal partisan bickering (partisans cry wolf... nobody listens, until they see facts which make their bickering obsolete) then we have a real problem.

Here's the situation: if you bicker as a partisan over nothingness, when something real comes about people figure you're making something out of nothing. If, when something out of something comes about, you make it out ot be something out of nothing, then nobody will believe you when you say that something is merely partisan bickering as you downplayed a significant event. They're mirros of each other which result in neither source having any credibility.

Sitsu, that came from the same guy who said, "We're also waiting to see if any democrats knew about it
and when. Hopefully the investigation is being done thoroughly, including
when ABC knew about it, who told them, etc." This seems to imply that the democrats are responsible for reporting and investigating all criminal charges along with ABC. I thought the US government had their own agencies for that sort of thing. And I thought he would be responsible for his own actions regardless of who knew...

Korf, his comment was really just megadittoing Rush Limbaugh: Limbaughs comment on the situation was that Dems and liberals arent really offended and that they actually want in on the action. I'm sure he's trolling through several blogs right now looking for more ways to try to spin his way out of this...

I agree with the first comment that he has his head up Rush's ass, but I really doubt that he would actually care enough to research anything. I think he came, he saw, he regurgitated, and he went. If you ask him about his comments, he will likely gladly regurgitate, but I'm fairly certain that he wasn't here for actual discourse, honest or otherwise. Idiots love to throw in their 2 cents which is pretty valiant of them considering most of them only make $7 an hour.

$7.88 Canadian actually, but i get the joke. heh. The US dollars not so strong here right now. Thats not something I take pride in, I do a lot of freelance work in the States and have relied on the once crazy exchange rate to make some extra spending money.

'Because every time you say, "oh, it's merely partisan bickering"' The reporting of said crime wasn't partisan bickering, the timing of it was. There are even reports that his political opponent may have been the one to blow the whistle in the first place. I want to make one thing perfectly clear... The man should be manually sterilized and shot from a cannon over the Atlantic. He's one sick puppy. It's not the fact that he was reported that's troubling me, it's the timing...

"It's not the fact that he was reported
that's troubling me, it's the timing..." The headline asks, "Is boyf*cking really as bad as liberal democrats say?" The answer is yes, in this context, it is as bad as the democrats say. Is the timing... "well planned, politically" which is to say dirty and dishonest? That wouldn't be a crazy idea. It also isn't really relevent to the discussion. You can make your own ytmnd bashing dirty democratic politics! Fun!

Oh, and Korf41, "Sorry, but you can't beat a cruise missle with your shotgun or assault rifle or no just stop." Tell that to the successful campaigns Iraqi civilians are waging against the provisional government. They can MacGuyver stuff that would blow up Humvees for christ's sake. No one ever thinks about it until they're put in that position. Necessary to the security of a free state.

For anyone questioning the timing of this story being released to the press... If the Republican leadership had addressed this issue OVER A YEAR AGO, it wouldn't have an issue at election time, would it? So whose fault is that?

Be fair now, Ominous. One, nobody raped anyone. Two, even if a Rebublican raped a teenage boy, it wouldn't make all Republicans rapists. Mark Foley's sexually explicit IMs were wrong, but they are not a political issue. The cover-up is a political issue. The IMs are merely hilarious.

"Tell that to the successful
campaigns Iraqi civilians are waging against the provisional government.
They can MacGuyver stuff that would blow up Humvees for christ's sake. No
one ever thinks about it until they're put in that position. Necessary to
the security of a free state." 3 words. Carpet bombing. Read about Dresden. I visited. They didn't appreciate Americans. It'd been 50+ years.